Changes in Type & Subtype for Monsters

[saucercrab]

When a monster gains a template that changes it's type, but adds it's original type as an augmented subtype, does the monster still count as its original type for things such as the bane weapon special ability?

An example would be the spellwarped ettin in MM III (page 162). Would it still be vulnerable to a +1 bane vs giants longsword? Would a dwarf still get its racial dodge bonus to AC vs it?

Another example would be a half-celestial human. (Even though it doesn't keep it's human subtype.)

I've scoured my books, but can't find a ruling. :\

 

[Hypersmurf]

When a monster gains a template that changes it's type, but adds it's original type as an augmented subtype, does the monster still count as its original type for things such as the bane weapon special ability?

No. An Aberration (Augmented Giant) is an Aberration, not a Giant. The Augmented subtype just tells us what it was, and explains why some of its features are those of a giant rather than an aberration (BAB, Hit Dice, Saves, etc).

The dwarf's racial bonus does not apply; the Bane weapon doesn't work.

The Main FAQ touches on this:

What kind of spells work on characters polymorphed
into creatures of different types than their own? Can you
cast hold person on a humanoid who is polymorphed into a
dire bear or would hold monster be required?

If a creature’s type changes (such as from a polymorph
spell), it is affected by spells according to its new type. An elf
polymorphed into a dire bear is immune to hold person (since
she is now an animal), but could be affected by hold animal or
hold monster.

Now, the elf is an Animal (Augmented Humanoid). ("A creature receives this subtype whenever something happens to change its original type.") Despite having the Augmented Humanoid subtype, she is unaffected by spells that target 'one humanoid' - she isn't a humanoid.

-Hyp.

 

[saucercrab]

Okay, thanks.

Follow-up question, then (which will prob' tread into houserules territory):
Would it make sense to allow this (augmented subtype to count as original type for effects), in certain cases? Like a dwarf dodging a half-fiend giant?

(Mods', move to House Rules if needed .)

 

[Infiniti2000]

No, it wouldn't make sense because that's not the type of creature. In fact, if you don't care how a creature got some of its features then you can safely ignore the augmented subtype or just drop it from the creature's stat block. It otherwise becomes totally irrelevant and misleading.

 

[the Jester]

Okay, thanks.

Follow-up question, then (which will prob' tread into houserules territory):
Would it make sense to allow this (augmented subtype to count as original type for effects), in certain cases? Like a dwarf dodging a half-fiend giant?

(Mods', move to House Rules if needed .)

I have a monster in my campaign with the Animal (human) type and subtype (the dire human, if you must know). The (human) subtype specifies that the creature is affected by spells and effects that specifically target human subtype humanoids (such as a humanbane weapon). Just one example of what you're talking about.

 

[Voadam]

Here is the relevant quote from the SRD:

Augmented Subtype: A creature receives this subtype whenever something happens to change its original type. Some creatures (those with an inherited template) are born with this subtype; others acquire it when they take on an acquired template. The augmented subtype is always paired with the creature’s original type. A creature with the augmented subtype usually has the traits of its current type, but the features of its original type.

The subtype does not say that it counts as a second type, so game effects that only affect a specific type would not work on the subtype.

A subtype is not a type.

Bane says: Bane: A bane weapon excels at attacking one type or subtype of creature. Against its designated foe, its effective enhancement bonus is +2 better than its normal enhancement bonus. It deals an extra 2d6 points of damage against the foe.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I have a monster in my campaign with the Animal (human) type and subtype (the dire human, if you must know).

This is an interesting choice because it's actually an invalid choice. The Animal type says with my emphasis, "An animal is a living, nonhuman creature..." Of course, feel free to do whatever you want IYC, but animals normally specifically cannot have the Human subtype. Now, apparently you could make an Dire Elf as an Animal (Elf).

Also note that any such creature must have an Int 1 or 2.

 

[saucercrab]

Alright, alright, I give in. Uncle!